Procedia

Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146 Computer

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000 Science
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

WCIT-2010

Teamwork productivity & effectiveness in an organization base on

rewards, leadership, training, goals, wage, size, motivation,
measurement and information technology

Hamid Tohidi a*
a
Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Activities in an organization require a lot of interaction and communication between the people involved.
Additionally, good activity often relies upon the ability of cross functional team to create a shared understanding of the task , the
process and the respective roles of it‘s members.
To effectively operate with teams , organization must know to make, use, and keep them and their members .
This paper provide a survey of research on teamwork productivity and effectiveness base on rewards, leadership, training, goals,
wage, size, motivation, measurement and information technology.
⃝c 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Guest Editor.
Keywords: Teamwork, Team Productivity, Team Effectiveness, Team Performance, Cooperative in Team.

1. Introduction

In today‘s world of work, fundamental transformation in complex structures are taking place. Organizations face
complex and dynamic environments that have been attributed to increases in the globalization and competitiveness
of the global economy ( Scott – Tiessen , 1990 )As most every body knows, change is constant within teamwork
productivity and effectiveness The emergence of new technologies , coupled with escalating demands from business
, has brought about both instability as well as new challenge.

In turn, teamwork must now look for new ways to adapt quickly, operate more efficiently and better prepare
themselves for future.
Not surprisingly , many organization believe redesigning the structure of their organization is the solution , on the
other hand , as well designed and planned , organization can have dramatic benefits for the enterprise , including
increased profitability , greater overall efficiency and better alignment of teamwork to business needs . In an effort
to assist those organizations considering undertaking this design effort , this paper give a survey of the research

* Hamid Tohidi. Tel.: +989123079694.

E-mail address: H_Tohidi@azad.ac.ir.

1877-0509 ⃝c 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.185
1138 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146

Hamid Tohidi/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

studies on teamwork productivity and effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to: (i) review literature, (ii) classify
the literature based on the teamwork productivity

2-CLassification scheme for teamwork productivity and effectiveness in an organization

Table 1 illustrates a classification scheme for the literature on the factors, impact on teamwork productivity and
effectiveness.
In this survey we have considered 10 major factors

3 - Teamwork productivity and effectiveness

Extensive work has been done on applying teamwork productivity and effectiveness in an organization.
Using the classification scheme developed in section 2 , research findings in an organization will be reviewed .
3-1 Reward systems
Team reward systems are the newest and fastest growing reward strategies because of the huge increase in
organization moving to team-based environment. ( De Matteo , Eby , & Sundstrom ,1998 ) As organization move
into team-based systems for

Research topics
1 Reward systems
2 Leadership
3 Training & learning
4 Goals
5 Intra group wage inequality
6 Size of team
7 Motivation
8 Models of effectiveness
9 Team measurment
10 Information technoligy

Table 1: Classification schemes for teamwork productivity and effectiveness.

management and eventually into team reward systems , performance become the “product of how well we leverage
skills into products or services “ .
( Thornburg , 1992 )
There are many possible reasons for implementing a team reward system , the most fundamental and basic reason
being that the organization structure is team –based management .
As organization explore the option and use of team-based management , it will become increasingly harder to
separate and distinguish the contribution and individuals .There becomes a great interdependency between jobs and
tasks because of the way work is no organized (Nickel & O ‘ Neal , 1990)
An important element to consider when implement team rewards systems is size of the reward.
Reward size has been shown to correlate with pay satisfaction and motivation
If the reward size is rather large , then it is in the group‘s best interest to work together with as much cooperation as
possible in order to achieve this rewards ( Wagner , Pubin & Callhan 1988 ) .
Lawler ( 1981 ) believes that the amount of rewards that the organization is able to allocate to the employees is a
critical factor in determining the motivation of the employee . Therefore , in the initial determination of size and
frequency of the allocation of rewards , leadership should carefully research and consider the effect that the size and
frequency of their rewards will have on the employee‘s motivation.
Schuster & Zingheim ( 1992 ) provide different options to consider as an organization determines how frequently to
give rewards
Rewards can be given at the same time that performance is measured .Or, rewards can be given by the use of a
reserve fund .
 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146 1139

Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

If the reserve fund is positive at the end of the year , the employee receive their share of balance . If the reserve fund
is negative at the end of the year , generally the organization takes the loss. A third option in deciding the
frequency of payout is paying out rewards over time after the end of particular performance period De Matteo , Eby
, & Sundstorm ( 1998 ) introduced two different types of reward allocation procedures .
These are equity norms and equality norms .
Equity norms mean disbursing the team‘s reward in proportion to the contribution of the individual team members .
Equality norms mean dividing the team‘s reward equally despite the varying degrees of contribution among the team
.
Hitchcock and Willard (1995) believe that the wealth should be shared equitably among team members as not to
turn rewards into a contest.
As team reward systems grow and increase in popularity , many organizations will move teams because of their
success.
However , some organization using individual reward systems may feel that they are successful for them and see no
reason to change , even if they decide to move to a team-based management approach .
Individual rewards are typically rewards are on pay-for-performance basis. ( Frederick Hills 1979 )
Barry Gerhart of cornel‘s center for Advanced Human Resource Studies ( Thornburg , 1992 ) believes that the
variance in individual performance is too substantial to be successful in a team reward system .
He believes that individuals should be recognized for the specific work.
Hitchcock and Willard ( 1995 ) say that individual rewards should never receive more attention than the team
rewards .
In using team reward systems , one important variable to consider is how the effectiveness of these rewards can be
measured .
Therefore , it is very important that these clear , concise measure are in place ( De Matteo , Eby , & Sundstrom ,
1998 )

Sara Allred (2004 ) introduces an actual model named “ stage model for the implementation on team reward systems
questionaire“ that accompanies the questionaire is a very simple guideline that consultant can use as he or she gains
answers to his or her questions.
Coudron ( 1994 ) writes that people learn to behave in certain ways based on the rewards they receive .
Therefore , in order to convey to people that want them to produce more in teams , reinforcement of behaviors that
lead to and sustain team performance is necessary.
Honey well , Dickinson , and Poling ( 1997 ) show that under group incentive system , top performers decrease their
performance when their earnings are reduced by poor performers . While poor performers continue to perform
below average because their benefit from the performance of other members.
Gross (1997) recommends three phases to implementation of a reward system .
The first phase is labeled feasibility , the second - phase is the design phase and the third phase is the actual
implementation of the program.
Pasacarella (1997 ) states that non-monetary rewards such as plaques , the trophies , vacation trips , and small gifts
can be the best incentive for team members.
He emphasizes , however , that the most important part of this kind of recognition is that management must give it
with sincerity.
Bartol and Hagmann (1992 ) suggest three methods of distributing rewards .
They are equal payments to all members of team , differential payments to team members based on their
contribution to team‘s performance , and differential payments determined by a ratio of each group member‘s base
pay to the total base pay of the group.
Saunier and Hawk (1994 ) define four teams through the nature of team membership and the length of time that a
team needs to be in place .
Different reward systems are used for these different teams.
Joseph Farrell and Suzanne scotchmer (1998 ) show that when agents are heterogeneous , team output is shared
equally and there are economies of scale from teamwork , team will be too small , since more able workers will
choose not to partner less able workers.
B . Curtis Eaton and Aidan Hollis (2003 ) developed a very simple model and evaluated how teams should be
rewarded given some specific distributions of opportunities .
1140 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146

Hamid Tohidi/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

3-2 Leadership
Eden ( 1990 ) studied about the effects on group performance of leaders expectations of group performance .
His research indicate that such expectancy effects occur in the comparison groups .
Jacobs & Singell ( 1993 ) offer a different perspective on how individual leaders can affect team performance .
They examined the effects of managers ( after controlling for other variables ) on the won-lost record of professional
baseball to identify superior managers . Superior managers were effective through at least two possible process : by
exercising excellent tactical skills or by improving the individual performance of team members.
George and Bettenhausen (1990 ) studied group of sale associates reporting to a store manager and found that the
favourability of leaders‘moods was inversly related to employee turnover.
Haleblian & Finelstein found that firms‘ performance is worse in turbulent environments when the chief executive
officers ( CEO ) is dominant and better when top-management team size is greater.

3-3 Training and learning

David Kolb , a developmental psychologist , synthesized and expanded the work of John Dewey , Kurt Lewin , and
Jean Piget to develop and adult learning cycle .
This cyclical , experiential process has been broken into four stages :
1) Concrete experiences ,
2 ) Observe and reflect on the experience from many perspective .
3) Create concepts to integrate these observation into logically sound theories ,
4) Testing implications of concepts.
Senge (1990) says that team learning is vital because teams , not individuals , are the fundamental learning units in
modern organization .
Thus , the collective IQ of the team is sometimes more than any individual member‘s IQ. Jay Payne & Anderson
(2004) found that team training is most effective when several important elements are met .The first is that business
ought to develop learning organization to facilitate and grow teams. The obvious advantage here is that when teams
are healthy and developing so is the organization. Teams need distinct training to work cohesively.

3-4 Goals
Katzenbach and Smith (1994) define an individual‘s goal as an ideal.
It is a desired place toward which people are working , a state of affairs that is valued .
A team‘s goal is a future state of affairs desired by enough members of a team to motivate the team to work toward
its achievement.
Horrington (1994) , goals do more than just give a team a sense of direction.
Fisher (1993) gives several consideration during individual team goal establishment.
If they are incorporated into the goal , an effective format for the team‘s plan of action will already be developed an
in place.
Both Johnson and Johnson (1994) and Zander (1974) suggest that a team is more important than the individual team
member‘s goals.
However , they also state that team‘s success might be more important than the success of company as a whole.
Juran and Gryna (1988 , 1993) developed a list of criteria to be met by those who establish goals
The top of the list is that goals must be measureable.
Walton (1990) describes a system typical of many companies.
They use a form of policy deployment known as management by objective-- a performance rating system for
managers in which a person sets goals in consultation which his manager is rewarded a bonus based on the extent
these goals or fulfilled.
Greg Hendrix (2004) says : Goal establishment is critical for the success of the team.
Without it , the team is almost assured to perform at less than their potential .
Implied goals , or goals handed down and accepted without consideration by the team , will also produce less than
desired results.
An environment that encourages teams to take chance, set high goals , will develop successful teams. Clear goals are
one of the vital few.
Brawley et al (1992) : Goals for group performance can take many forms : quantity , speed , accuracy , service to
others , and so on .
 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146 1141

Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

Weingart (1992) examined in a laboratory experiment member effort and planning, two possible mediators of goal
effects , and found evidence indicating that member effort mediated the impact of goal difficulty on performance.
Weldon & Weingart (1993), Lee (1989 ) Locke & Latham (1990) found other possible mediators of affects of group
goals include the degree of cooperation and communication they simulate in groups .
Mitehell & Silver (1990) found that the presence of both individual and group goals resulted in performance no
greater that attained in the presence of group goals alone.
Lee (1989) show that team goal-setting mediated the relationship between team-member self-efficacy and winning
percentage among several female field hockey teams.

3-5 Intra group wage inequality

Akerlof & Yellen (1990) argue that workers proportionately withdraw effort as their actual wage falls short of their
fair wage .
They posit that a “ fair wage “ is a function of the wage received by other members , of the some firm , so that
workers in low demand will perceive a lower fair wage than workers in high demand .
Levine (1991) and Ramaswamy and Rowthorn (1991) more directly tie intra team inequality to it‘s effect on
team performance , but with different implications.
They formally relax the multicative assumption and analyze a production function in which effort is not necessarily
labour – augmenting .
They show that this reduces the elasticity of effort with respect to the wage , which is most relevant for production
process characterized by high complementary between workers.
Levine (1991) argues that a lower-variance wage distribution increase worker cohesiveness and raised firm output .
Conversely , greater wage inequality hurts team cohesiveness and lowers firm output.
Depken (2000) estimated the effect of wage inequality on team performance.
He finds a negative and significant effect of wage disparity on team performance.

3-6 Size of team

Kandel and Lazear (1992) claim that in a simple model of an equitable partnership, Nash equilibrium effort levels
fall with the number of partners the 1/N problem.
Jones and Pliskin (1997) find that larger firm are more likely to offer employee share ownership to all non-
managerial employees and profit sharing to production workers , contradicting the standard intuition .
Knez and Simester (2001) : A flight cannot depart until the entire ramp and gate activities have been performed , so
that poor performance by one employee can negate good performance by the rest of the group .
Che and Yoo (2002) present a theoretical model of group incentive in a repeated game that formalizes the argument
made in Weitzman and Kruse (1990) the authors show that the implicit incentives generated by perfect (within
group) monitoring and repeated interaction allow the free rider problem to be solved.
There exists a parallel discussion of group size and free riding in the charitable giving literature.
Andreoni (1988) shows that the standard model of charitable giving, voluntary contributions to a public good ,
imply a free rider problem .
Issac and Walker (1988) show that the free rider problem does increase with group size, but only if the value of the
marginal contribution is allowed to decrease with group size.

3-7 Motivation and group performance

Shamir (1990) analyzed three different forms of collectivistic work motivation : calculation ( rewards or sanctions
are anticipated to follow from group performance) , identification (one‘s self-concept is influenced by membership
in a group ) , and internalization ( acceptance of group beliefs and norms as a basis for motivated behaviour ) .
Guzzo et al (1993) maintained an interest in motivation at the group level of analysis , not at the individual level of
analysis.
Earley (1994) provided empirical evidence on the role of individualism – collectivism ( a culture – based individual
difference ) in shaping the impact of motivational ( self efficacy) training for individuals .
Sheppard (1993) offered an interpretation of individual task-performance motivation in groups that drew heavily on
expectancy theory
1142 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146

Hamid Tohidi/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

3-8 Models of effectiveness

Effectiveness can be defined according to Campion , Medsker & Higgs (1993) in terms of productivity , employee
and customer satisfaction and manager Judgements .
According to that model Job design ,interdependence, composition , context and process are the themes that
contribute to the above effectiveness criteria .
Hackman‘s definition (1990) of effectiveness is defined in a three dimensional definition : the group‘s output
meeting quality standards , the group‘s ability to work interdependently in the future , and the growth and well being
of team members .
Guzzo‘s model (1986) differs considerably from the two aforementioned model .
He does, however, defined by measurable group-produced outputs, His model shows the three variable he considers
essential for effectiveness : task interdependence , outcome interdependence and potency .
These three variables, through task-related interaction, affect the group‘s task effectiveness and be influenced by
either group members or people outside the group.
The model by Sundstrom , De Meuse , and Futrell (1990) represents a comprehensive synthesis of the research on
the effectiveness of workteams .
The authors have called it the ecological framework for analyzing workteam effectiveness
In this model, effectiveness is defined as a combined, measure of team performance and team viability .
The self-managing team effectiveness model developed by Susan Cohen identifies specific components critical to
success (Cohen , 1994 ) .
The major components of the model include employee involvement, encouraging supervisor behaviour, group task
design, group characteristics , team performance , member attitudes with quality of worklife , and withdrawal
behaviours.
William G . Dyer (1994)ˬ s model provide the framework for the research that follows .
Dyer recognizes the role and impact of the organization in establishing effective teams.

3-9 Team measurement

Mohram et al : (1995) recognize the establishment of goals and objective , planning of work , and the identification
of skills , tools , and resources needed by performers as products of defining and measuring performance.
Rummler and Brache (1995) point out some managerial benefits for using measures .
First , the measures that are applied will communicate performance expectations to subordinate in the organization.
In addition , measure are the basis for management to know what is going on in their organization and to help
identify performance gaps that should be analyzed and eliminated.
Jack Zigon (1995) recognizes some of the problems that arise in team measurement .
First , it is not always obvious what should be measured .
Even if it is clear what to measure , it is not always clear how the measurement should be done .
What seems important to assess may , in many cases , not be easily transferable into numbers.
Daniels (1989) suggests that rating systems are preferable when performance is measured by judgement .
He states that both results and behaviour should be pinpointed and measured , but results should always be measured
first .
Zigon (1995) suggests a comprehensive , seven-step model for performance standards for teams and emphasizes that
good measures are those that can be verified by someone else and that are observable .
Gilbert (1989) divides performance measurement into four basic categories : quality , quantity , timeliness , and cost
.
Yeatts and Hyten make the point that the business knowledge of team members should be taken into account in
deciding the degree to which financial measures should be used .
Models promoting operational measures as well as measures of customer satisfaction are the performance pyramid (
Lynch & Cross 1991 ) and the Balanced Scorecard ( Kaplan & Norton 1992 ) .

3-10 IT
King and Sethi (1999) suggest that IT is fundamental to effective global operations in two primary ways : providing
a coordination mechanism for geographically dispersed activities , and facilitating the reshaping of the separate
organizations into global cooperative .
 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146 1143

Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

Carmel (2001) summarizes five major challenges that global software development teams face :
1) Adjusting to geographical dispersion of IT personnel and users .
2) Loss of communication richness with less face – to – face interaction .
3)Coordination breakdown in project management.
4) Loss of “ teamness “ .
5) Dealing with cultural differences among globally distributed staff and business organizations
Pare and Dude (2000) propose a framework for studying virtual and hoc teams (such as development project teams)
, addressing factors such as project context , ICT use , team dynamics , and project management strategies .
Ramesh and Dennis (2002) propose an object – oriented team model , conceptually following object oriented
software design principles , that uses loose coupling of IT design tasks among dispersed group of IT personnel to
reduce communication and coordination loads.
Sudstrom , De Meuse , and Futrell‘s (1990) ecological framework for analyzing workteam effectiveness focuses on
the interplay of features of the embedding context of groups.
Maznevski and Chudob (2000) found that interactions in effective global decision-making teams centred around
incidents of intense interactions, with lower – volumes of interactions through less- rich IT media in-between times,
and that team activities were organized around repeating patterns of such incidents .
Elizabeth J . Davidson & Albert S. M. Tay(2003) suggest that the study of global IT support teams provides a rich
setting to investigate issues related to globalization of business enterprises , the role of information technologies in
globalization , the factors that influence effectiveness, and thus competitiveness of organizations dependent on
global teamwork.
Deborah Jude- York suggest: high performing teams who have mastered technology enhancements and developed
the corresponding human / social systems have made significant improvements in their productivity.

4 Conclusion
This paper has discussed an extensive literature review and survey of research studies on teamwork productivity and
effectiveness
Through the course of this study, it has been observed that (1) the factors that influence the effectiveness of teams at
work in organizations. (2) It provides some of the strongest support for the value of teams to organizational
effectiveness.
The research compiled in this review came from many papers .Our motivation was to identify how team works can
be used effectively in an organization.
Ideally , this foundation will assist researchers currently engaged in teamwork productivity and effectiveness
and may lead to the identification and stimulation of areas requiring additional research .

References :
- Akerlof , George and Janet Yellen (1990) , “The fair wage-effort hypothesis and unemployment,“
Quarterly Journal of Economics ,vol, 105 ,no.2, May
- Andreoni,James (1988), “privately provided public goods in a large economy : the limits of altruism ,”
Journal of Public Economics , 35 , 57-73 .
- B, Curtis Eaton and Aidan Hallis (2003) , private information and teamwork , Department of Economics ,
University of Calagary .
- Bartol, K.M. & Hagmann ,L.L.(1992) Team-based pay plans : A key to effective teamwork . Compensation
and Benefits Review, 24 (6), 24-49 .
- Brawley LR , carron AV , widmeyer WN . (1992). The nature of group goals in sports teams : a
phenomenological analysis.Sport Psychol.6:323-33
- Campion,M.A., Medsker, G. J . & Higgs , A . C.(1993) Relations between work group characteristics and
effectiveness : Implications for designing effective work groups : Personal Psychology , 46,823-850 .
- Che,Yeon–Koo and Seung-Weon Yoo (2002), “Optimal incentives for teams,” American Economic
Review, 91(3),525-541 .
- Carmel , E . (1999) , Global software teams : Collaborating across borders and time zones. Upper Saddle
River , New Jersey : Prentice Hall .
- Caudron, S.(1994). Tie individual pay to team success .Personnel Journal , 73 (19) , 40-46
1144 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146

Hamid Tohidi/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

- Cohen , Susan G . (1994) Designing effective self-managing work teams in advances in interdisciplinary
studies of work teams , Michael M . Beyerlein and Douglas A . Johnson (Eds .) . Greenwich , CT , JAI
Press Inc .
- Daniels.A.C(1989).Performance Management : Improving quality and productivity through positive
reinforcement.Tucker,GA: Performance Management.
- Deborah Jude-York (2003) , Technology Enhanced Teamwork : Aligning individual contributions for
superior team performance . The York Consulting Team , Danville California .
- De Matteo, J. S. , Eby , L.T . & Sundstrom , E. (1998) . Team-based rewards: current empirical evidence
and directions for future research . In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) , Research in organizational
behaviour : An Annual series of Analytical Essays and Critical Review : vol. 20 , (pp.141-183) . Greenwich
, CT : JAI Press Inc.
- Depken , II , Craig A . (2000) , “ Wage disparity and team productivity : evidence from major league baseball ,
“ Economic letters , 67,PP. 87-92 .
- Dyer , William G . (1994) , Team building : current issues and new alternative . Reading , MA ; Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company .
- Earley Pc. (1994) Self or group ? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance . Adm . Sci
.Q . 39:89-117
- Eden D . (1990) Pygmalion without interpersonal contrast effects : whole group gain from raising manager
expectation. J. Appl . Psychol . 75 : 394-98 .
- Elizabeth J . Davidson & Albert S . M . Tay (2003) , Studying teamwork in global IT support . 36th Hawaii
international conference on system science .
- Fisher , Kimball (1993). Leading self-directed work teams : A guide to developing new team leadership
skills , New York : McGraw-Hill, Inc .
- George JM , Bettenhausen K .( 1990 ) . Understanding prosocial behaviour , sales performance , and turn
over : a group-level analysis in a service context . J . Appl . Psychol . 75 : 698-709 .
- Gilbert , T.F.(1978,1996) Human competence : Engineering Worthy Performance . Washington, D.C
.International Society for Performance Improvement .
- Greg Hendrix (2004) . The Importance of goals to the success of work teams . Centre for the study of work
teams , University of North Texas .
- Gross, S. E . (1995) . Compensation for teams : How to design and implement team-based reward systems .
New York American Management Association .
- Guzzo RA , ( 1996 ) , Fundamental considerations about workgroups . In handbook of work groups
psychology , ed . M West . Chichester : Wiley . In Press.
- Guzzo , R A (1996) Group decision making and group effectiveness . In Goodman , P.S.(Ed .) Designing
Effective Work Group , 34-71.San francisco , CA : Jossey-Bass .
- Hackman,J. R.(1990) Groups that work ( and those that don‘t ) . San francisco , CA : Jossey-Bass .
- Haleblian J , Finkelstein S . (1993). Top management team size , CEO dominance , and firm performance :
the moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion . Acad . Manage . J . 36:844-63 .

- Harrington , H . James (1994) .Of tails and teams : A fable for children and ceo‘s Milwaukee , WI : ASQC
Quality Press .
- Hills , F . S (1979) . Solving the pay-for-performance dilemma. In K.Davis & J.W. Newstrom (Eds . )
Organizational behaviour : reading and exercises . Sixth Edition , ( pp . 216-218 ) . New York , NY :
McGraw-Hill Book Company .
- Hitchcock , D . and Willard , M . (1995) . Why teams can fail and what to do about it : Essential tools for
anyone implementing self-directed work team , pp . 55-56 & 138-141 . Chicago , IL : Irwin Professional
Publishing .
- Honeywell,J.A.,Dickinson.A. M , & Poling , A .(1997). Individual performance as a function of individual
and group pay contingencies . Psychological Record , 47 (2) , 261-274 .
- Issac , R . Mark and James M . Walker (1988) , “ Group size Effects in public good provision The
voluntary contributions mechanism ,’’Quarterly Journal of Economics 103(1) 179-199
- Jacobs D, Singell L. (1993). Leadership and organizational performance ;isolating Links between managers
and collective success . Soc Sci . Res . 22:165-89 .
- Jay payne-Anderson (2004) Centre for the study of work team , University of North Texas.
 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146 1145

Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

- Johnson,D., and Johnson , F . (1994) . Joining together : Group theory and group skills . Needham Heights ,
MA : Allyn and Bacon.
- Jones, Derek and Jeffrey pliskin (1997).’’Determinants the incidence of group incentive: Evidence from
Canada , “ Canadian Journal of Economics , 30(4b),1024-1045
- Joseph Farrell and Suzanne Scotchmer (1998), Partnerships , Quarterly Journal of Economics 103 (2) :
279-297 .
- Juran J.M. and Gryna, F .(1988). Quality Control Handbook. New York; McGraw–Hill, Inc.
- Juran, J. M.,and Gryna,F .(1993) .Quality planning and Analysis. New York; McGraw Hill, Inc.
- Kandel, Eugene and Edward Lazear (1992),’’Peer pressure and partnerships ,’’Journal of Political
Economy ,100,801-817.

- Katzenbach , J. , and Smith , D. (1994 ) . The wisdom of teams New York : Harper Business
- King , W.R. , and Sethi , V. ( 1999 ), An empirical assessment of the organization of transnational .
- Knez , Mark and Duncan Simester (2001 ) ,”Firm – wide incentives and mutual monitoring at continental
airlines ,” Journal of Labor Economics , 19(4), 743-772
- Lawler , E.E. (1981) Pay and organization development , pp.11-27. Reading, MA: Addison –Wesley
Publishing co .
- Lee C. ( 1989 ).the relationship between goal setting , self – Efficacy , and female field hochey team
performance. Int . J. sport psychol. 20(2) : 147-61
- Lyuch,R.L and Cross, K. F. (1991) , Measure Up ! Yardsticks for Continues Improvement. Basil Blackwell
, Cambridge , MA .
- Maznevski , M.L . , and Chudob , K . M . (2000). Bridging space over time : Global Virtual Team–
Dynamics and Effectiveness. Organization Science , 11 (5) , 473-492 .
- Mitchell TR , Silver WS . (1990) . Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent : effects on
task strategies and performance . J . Appl .Psychol . 75 : 185-93 .
- Mohrman,S.A., Cohen,S. G., & Mohrman, A. M(1995 ) , Designing team-based organizations New Forms
for Knowledge Work San francisco , CA Jossey – Bass Publishers .
- Nickel , J .E.& O‘Neal , S . (1990) . Small group incentives: Gain sharing in the microscosm,
Compensation and Benefits Review , 22 , 22-29 .
- Pare , G . and Dube , L . (2000) , Ad Hoc Virtual Teams : A multi-disciplinary framework and a research
agenda . Proceedings of the Information Resources Management Association International Conference ,
Anchorage Alaska .
- Pasacarella,P.(1997). Compensating teams . Across the Board , 34(2) , 16-22 .
- Ramesh , V . , and Dennis , A . (2002) , The object –oriented team lessons for virtual teams from global
software development proceedings of the 35 (th) Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences ,
Hawaii .
- Rummler , G. A. & Brache , A P. (1995) , Improving performance how to manage the white space on the
organization chart . San- Francisco , CA Jossey –Bass Publishers .
- Sara Allred (2004) Team reward systems . Centre for study of work team , University of North Texas .
- Saunier,A.M.,& Hawk,E.J.(1994). Realizing the potential of team-based rewards . Compensation and
Benefits Review , 26(4),24-33 .
- Schuster , J.& Zingheim , P. (1992) The New Pay : Linking employee and organizational performance,210-
219.New York,NY : Lexington Books .
- Senge , p . (1990) . The Fifth Discipline : The art & practice of the learning organization , New York :
Doubleday .
- Shamir B . (1990) , Calculations , Values , and Identities : the sources of collectivistic Work motivation .
Hum . Relat . 43:313-32 .
- Sheppard JA . (1993) , Productivity loss in performance groups : a motivational analysis . Psychol . Bull .
113:67-81 .
- Sundstrom , E . S. , DE Meuse , K . p ., & Futrell ,D.(1990) , Work Teams : Application and effectiveness.
American Psychologist, 45(2) 120-133 .
- Thornburg , L . (1992) . How do you cut the cake ? HR Magazine , 37,66-72 .
1146 H. Tohidi / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 1137–1146

Hamid Tohidi/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

- Wagner,J.A.,Pubin , P . A. , & Callahan , T.J. (1988).Incentive payment and nonmanagerial productivity :

An interrupted time series analysis of magnitude and trend . Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes , 42 , 47-74 .
- Walton, Mary (1990) . Deming management at work . New York : G.P. putnam‘s Sons .
- Weingart LR. (1992). Impact of group goals , task component complexity , effort , and planning on group
performance . J . Appl . Psychol . 77 :682-93 .
- Weldon E, Weingart LR. (1993). Group goals and group performance.Br. J.Soc. Psychol . 32:307-34 .
- Zander , Alvinf . (1974) . Productivity and group success :Team spirit versus the individual achiever .
Psychology Today , 8,64-68 .
- Zigon J. (1995) . How to measure the results of work teams . Media , PA :Zigon Performance Group .